Hi Guy:
Guy Blanchet wrote:
> I have been reading comments from people asking questions about death in
> the beginning of Adam and Eve's stay in the garden of Eden. The various
> comments reflect an apparent difficulty in linking sin with death.
> Maybe it's just that the concept of sin has become fuzzy over the
> years. Sinning means going against God's will. God being Justice as
> well as Love cannot tolerate desobedience.
Would you accept the definition of "missing the mark" for sin as not
clouding the concept? This includes the notion of violating God's will but
allows us to cast God's will in light of what is best for us - as opposed to
a notion of simply breaking the authority's arbitrary rules.
> Life in the garden was
> carefree...except for one detail: He told Adam and Eve they could have
> everything but should not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and
> evil...or else..."you will surely die".
>
> The implication of that rather graphic remark is clear: death in the
> garden of Eden was avoidable...otherwise God's threat would have been an
> idle one! ......
> Following Adam and Eve's delinquent behaviour death came into the
> picture. The first death is reported in Genesis 3: 21 "The Lord made
> garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them". God had to
> put an end to an animal's life...unless He just borrowed the skin for
> awhile...!
Man did have to cultivate the garden.
Question: are you saying death was or was not in operation in Eden before
the fall? If it was possible to dye, then it must have been in operation
before the fall. This would explain the need of a tree of life to ward off
decay.
> Through man, evil entered the world and the whole world felt it. It was
> not just man and the animal kingdom that felt the anguish, but nature
> also. Genesis speaks of thorns and thistles as competing for the food
> that man had to grow in order to survive. Competition was an unknown
> concept in Eden.
However, the Satan was there - in the world - before the fall! What kind of
paradise includes a Devil? Evidently God's kind! The origin of evil is
clearly this created entity who, as the story goes, was allowed to have
free access to the garden's delights.
> So, in the begining, God created a perfect Earth within a perfect
> universe.
In what sense do you use "Earth" and "universe"; in the present scientific
sense or in the scientific understanding of the time of Moses? If it is the
former, than we have a problem; if it is in the latter sense, then these
notions of earth and sky were local - which allows other interpretations of
the recorded events. (see Glenn's work).
> This is why He is noted to often say "it is good". God being
> Holy would not be able to call "good" something which is evil.
Have you seen the movie Time Bandits? If so, notice what the producers have
God say in the end as he (God) passes by the Satan who had been "carbonized"
by the presents of God's visitation to "Hell". (If you have not seen the
movie, my wife hated it but my young children and I loved it! That should
give you an idea of the maturity level it entertains :-)) Oh yea, God says
".....he (Satan) WORKS pretty good - doesn't he!. As Job reveals, Lucifer is
God's devil.
> The now
> famous tree of knowledge was not an ugly smudge in the middle of a
> "good" creation. The existence of this tree simply means God created
> man free. God put it there because evil existed. But He did say do not
> touch it. Freedom is a double edge sword: one is free to do right and
> free to do wrong. Adam and Eve were not forced to disobey God. The
> serpent merely made a suggestion. If God had not included this tree he
> would have deprived man of his freedom of choice. God does not force
> goodness down anyone's throat. Man is asked to adhere to it strictly by
> choice.
On the contrary, the tree of knowledge was a very "good" tree in that it
makes one "like God"! If its purpose was as you suggest - simply a testing
object - why not put a purple pool of paint in the garden so that if man
violated God's edict to "not lap", he/she would end up with at worst a
purple tongue as evidence of disobedience? The story of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil has its emphasis on the potency to become like
God and not on a test of man's will. All of this was planned "from the
beginning" to accomplish just what is being accomplished today: sentient
human beings made in the image of God AND knowing good and evil! Nothing has
gone wrong, for this is the beginning of the story; God in Christ (the
second Adam) being crucified and thereby uniting again God and this
enlightened humanity is the continuation!
> So, as a result of sin, man, animals and nature are all fallen. And
> there is nothing that excludes the idea that nature includes all of the
> universe. A bit of thought suggests that God most likely heralded the
> post-sin era with His principle of entropy. From that time on, the
> stars including our Sun were also doomed to die because the universe's
> supply of useful energy began depleating i.e. ceased to be upheld by
> God.
Actually, further thought indicates that if the second law (entropy) was not
existent in Eden (let alone the galaxies!), then Eden would literally be
another universe; i.e., heat transfer would not occur which has a set of
consequences that approaches infinity in dimension one of which is that
stars wouldn't shine!
> One must mention that some of the difficulty with what preceeds comes
> from trying to wedge in the theory of evolution which suggests a
> chronology of events where carnivorous dinosaures (i.e. able and willing
> to eat its fellow beast) cavorted the Earth long before man...therefore
> that death existed before man existed...therefore downplaying the
> seriousness of sin. This bring us back to the problem of freedom being
> a double-edged sword....we are always free to be wrong. It just depends
> on how intently one listens to the Holy Spirit who interprets
> Scripture. Man's little spirit acting alone does not do too well in
> that area.
>
Evolutionary biology is just a small part of what you are contending with
here. If the fall is the second law's birth than you must expel all
chemical/physical laws from the garden before the fall occurs - which
equates to postulating a new universe. This is not necessary if you view the
Genesis account as a story that predicates truth via moral; not as a
historic account that predicates chronological events of any sort. If the
latter were so, and if my memory of the account serves me correctly :-),
then there ought to be a large angel armed with a flaming sword physically
standing guard to Eden's entrance to this day. Most are willing to allow
this to be symbolic but attempt to force ("wedge") chronologically literal
meaning upon the rest of the details of the story.
Sincerely,
George A.
--------------9AAE7953B7B18DBEEE7007A9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi Guy:
Guy Blanchet wrote:
I have been reading comments from people asking questions about death in
the beginning of Adam and Eve's stay in the garden of Eden. The various
comments reflect an apparent difficulty in linking sin with death.
Maybe it's just that the concept of sin has become fuzzy over the
years. Sinning means going against God's will. God being Justice as
well as Love cannot tolerate desobedience.Would you accept the definition of "missing the mark" for sin as not clouding the concept? This includes the notion of violating God's will but allows us to cast God's will in light of what is best for us - as opposed to a notion of simply breaking the authority's arbitrary rules.
Life in the garden was
carefree...except for one detail: He told Adam and Eve they could have
everything but should not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and
evil...or else..."you will surely die".The implication of that rather graphic remark is clear: death in the
garden of Eden was avoidable...otherwise God's threat would have been an
idle one! ......
Following Adam and Eve's delinquent behaviour death came into the
picture. The first death is reported in Genesis 3: 21 "The Lord madeMan did have to cultivate the garden.
garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them". God had to
put an end to an animal's life...unless He just borrowed the skin for
awhile...!
Question: are you saying death was or was not in operation in Eden before the fall? If it was possible to dye, then it must have been in operation before the fall. This would explain the need of a tree of life to ward off decay.
Through man, evil entered the world and the whole world felt it. It wasHowever, the Satan was there - in the world - before the fall! What kind of paradise includes a Devil? Evidently God's kind! The origin of evil is clearly this created entity who, as the story goes, was allowed to have free access to the garden's delights.
not just man and the animal kingdom that felt the anguish, but nature
also. Genesis speaks of thorns and thistles as competing for the food
that man had to grow in order to survive. Competition was an unknown
concept in Eden.
So, in the begining, God created a perfect Earth within a perfectIn what sense do you use "Earth" and "universe"; in the present scientific sense or in the scientific understanding of the time of Moses? If it is the former, than we have a problem; if it is in the latter sense, then these notions of earth and sky were local - which allows other interpretations of the recorded events. (see Glenn's work).
universe.
This is why He is noted to often say "it is good". God beingHave you seen the movie Time Bandits? If so, notice what the producers have God say in the end as he (God) passes by the Satan who had been "carbonized" by the presents of God's visitation to "Hell". (If you have not seen the movie, my wife hated it but my young children and I loved it! That should give you an idea of the maturity level it entertains :-)) Oh yea, God says ".....he (Satan) WORKS pretty good - doesn't he!. As Job reveals, Lucifer is God's devil.
Holy would not be able to call "good" something which is evil.
The nowOn the contrary, the tree of knowledge was a very "good" tree in that it makes one "like God"! If its purpose was as you suggest - simply a testing object - why not put a purple pool of paint in the garden so that if man violated God's edict to "not lap", he/she would end up with at worst a purple tongue as evidence of disobedience? The story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has its emphasis on the potency to become like God and not on a test of man's will. All of this was planned "from the beginning" to accomplish just what is being accomplished today: sentient human beings made in the image of God AND knowing good and evil! Nothing has gone wrong, for this is the beginning of the story; God in Christ (the second Adam) being crucified and thereby uniting again God and this enlightened humanity is the continuation!
famous tree of knowledge was not an ugly smudge in the middle of a
"good" creation. The existence of this tree simply means God created
man free. God put it there because evil existed. But He did say do not
touch it. Freedom is a double edge sword: one is free to do right and
free to do wrong. Adam and Eve were not forced to disobey God. The
serpent merely made a suggestion. If God had not included this tree he
would have deprived man of his freedom of choice. God does not force
goodness down anyone's throat. Man is asked to adhere to it strictly by
choice.
So, as a result of sin, man, animals and nature are all fallen. AndActually, further thought indicates that if the second law (entropy) was not existent in Eden (let alone the galaxies!), then Eden would literally be another universe; i.e., heat transfer would not occur which has a set of consequences that approaches infinity in dimension one of which is that stars wouldn't shine!
there is nothing that excludes the idea that nature includes all of the
universe. A bit of thought suggests that God most likely heralded the
post-sin era with His principle of entropy. From that time on, the
stars including our Sun were also doomed to die because the universe's
supply of useful energy began depleating i.e. ceased to be upheld by
God.
One must mention that some of the difficulty with what preceeds comesEvolutionary biology is just a small part of what you are contending with here. If the fall is the second law's birth than you must expel all chemical/physical laws from the garden before the fall occurs - which equates to postulating a new universe. This is not necessary if you view the Genesis account as a story that predicates truth via moral; not as a historic account that predicates chronological events of any sort. If the latter were so, and if my memory of the account serves me correctly :-), then there ought to be a large angel armed with a flaming sword physically standing guard to Eden's entrance to this day. Most are willing to allow this to be symbolic but attempt to force ("wedge") chronologically literal meaning upon the rest of the details of the story.
from trying to wedge in the theory of evolution which suggests a
chronology of events where carnivorous dinosaures (i.e. able and willing
to eat its fellow beast) cavorted the Earth long before man...therefore
that death existed before man existed...therefore downplaying the
seriousness of sin. This bring us back to the problem of freedom being
a double-edged sword....we are always free to be wrong. It just depends
on how intently one listens to the Holy Spirit who interprets
Scripture. Man's little spirit acting alone does not do too well in
that area.
Sincerely,
George A.
--------------9AAE7953B7B18DBEEE7007A9--